| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Being honest
Bruce Twitchell, Photographer
 |
Coeur d'Alene | ID | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 04.16.09 |
->> A good write-up about editing images.
http://tinyurl.com/dhqncz
From the article-
"It's the flaws, the capturing of reality that make a picture great. No, I'm not saying you have to act like you're recording a crime scene, and I'm not saying you shouldn't decide how to interpret the color of a scene, or the contrast, or even what needs to be burned down a bit, but I am saying you've got to know when you've crossed the line.
When you cross that line, you've destroyed your ability to communicate with your audience. That's the bottom line. If you can't show people what you've seen in a truthful way, if you don't have that credibility, why pick up a camera in the first place?
None of us are going to be impressed with your photoshop skills."
I could not have said it better myself. |
|
Rich Cruse, Photographer
|
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:39 PM on 04.16.09 |
| ->> Amen! |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 11:07 PM on 04.16.09 |
| ->> [waiting for those who don't get "it" to start chiming in] |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 9:04 AM on 04.17.09 |
->> A calm rational essay on the topic from someone of fine repute.
I doubt there are many who don't "get it", but there are plenty who will contend that it simply does not apply to them and what they do ...
and that is the problem. Journalism ethics do not apply outside of journalism, but behavior outside of journalism still affects the perception of journalism.
I will be Ken's essays widely and thanks to Bruce for the tip.
Sean |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:35 AM on 04.17.09 |
->> Sam it's not the people who don't get "IT" it's the people who don't CARE.
With the proliferation of iReporting and the decimating of true pj's in favor of handing a p&s to a reporter I have to wonder WHO really cares about this. |
|
Rob Kerr, Photographer
|
Bend | OR | US | Posted: 11:44 AM on 04.17.09 |
->> this years' contest results caused me some scalp scratching ... if decisions by judges, like the below link, continue, trends will be solidified.
http://tinyurl.com/dkp685
i believe that a great strength of photography is that it is considered real, enough to be submitted as evidence in the courtroom. to take the believable, or real out of a photograph is negative to one of its strengths.
the photos used with the intent of reportage need to look 'real'. sometimes i worry that a professional photographer is less believable than joe-public. joe-public doesn't use photoshop, depth-of-field or black and white to elaborate an event. |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 11:58 AM on 04.17.09 |
->> "it's not the people who don't get "IT" it's the people who don't CARE."
Right on, right on.
The uncaring folk would be the visually deficient newsroom managers who are slashing photo departments left and right.
To them it's just "get some art on the page and get it out."
Standards decline in the absence of educated and informed scrutiny, especially in the light of seductive software that can be so easily employed to cheat at what was once was regarded as a craft.
There is a rather huge gap between rating your ISO 64 Kodachrome at ISO 80 and saturation tools in Photoshop®.
Try to find a newsroom AME who thinks this dialog has merit. |
|
Joseph Zimmerman, Photographer
|
Howard | Pa | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 04.17.09 |
->> I've never really gotten into these debates before since Idon't work for anyone but myself. I'll say though that I do try to follow journalistic standards in what I do. I was a bit tired but of my standard lead photos of late and decided to go a bit artsy last night. If you look right now (it changes to the 2nd story after tonights game) at the top slide show on the main page of my website I did a little "work" on a photo I took. It's clearly processed. I mean clearly. Would this be considered a no-no? I tend to think of it more as an illustration or art print, sort of like what our local paper does with cutting out photos and placing them around the headers of the page. Is what I did wrong? I answer to no one but myself but I am trying to stick within the journalistic standards.
http://centrecountysports.com |
|
N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
|
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 04.17.09 |
->> Joseph,
My first impression was "What's wrong with the photo? Did the upload mess up?
I am always for artistic attempts, but I don't think it worked for me. Sorry! |
|
Sean D. Elliot, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Norwich | CT | USA | Posted: 6:18 PM on 04.17.09 |
->> Joseph, I'm not even clear what the intent was? We're talking about the image that looks sort of solarized? Journalistically it serves no purpose. Sure, ethically you're on pretty safe ground in that it's so obviously "worked" that it's not misleading, but the point that Ken Jarecke is making is that doing ANYTHING is unnecessary and degrades the overall sense of credibility of our images. Even if you do something and tell everyone what you've done, it still gives the readers just another reason to question whether they can trust what they are seeing.
Oh, and I think there are a lot of AMEs who care about this argument, I think it's when you go one step up the food chain that the photo ethics question suddenly becomes too esoteric to care. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|